I... just do. not. understand how "random acts of violence against innocent bystanders" is a logical way to protest if what you are angry about is an act of violence against an innocent.

It's not about a logical way, it's about pent up anger boiling over. And it's also about media framing, there's a bias to frame to protests all over the U.S against the institutional racism on display as "anti-Zimmerman riots". Even so riots are an expression of the deeper problem at and here. The acquittal of Zimmerman was just another straw on the camels back, coupled with the racist backlash surrounding the trial. Also if those pictures is all that the media can come up with those are some pretty weak sauce riots._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

I... just do. not. understand how "random acts of violence against innocent bystanders" is a logical way to protest if what you are angry about is an act of violence against an innocent.

Because until the rest of the country gets uncomfortable enough with the civil unrest to really start looking at the problem behind it, nothing gets done.

Sucks to be the innocent, but it sucked to be a black 17 year old in a hoodie who wanted some skittles after dark back then too.

Because the best way to say fuck the system is to randomly assault bystanders in a city across the fucking continent.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a pretty shitty way to justify random violence. If anything, I'd say that it would hurt their cause; it gives the authorities that be reason to crack down on it and suppress public opinion rather than actually looking at the problems at hand._________________Hangman, hangman, hold it a little while, I think I see my brother coming, riding many a mile.

URL says most of it, but tl;dr - anti-Zimmerman protestors blocked the route to a children's hospital, including the freeway. Woman was trying to drive a little girl who was having an allergic reaction into the ER. Instead of letting her pass, the protestors attacked her car, and when she rolled down the window to plead with them to let her get treatment for the child, they started hitting her._________________“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

URL says most of it, but tl;dr - anti-Zimmerman protestors blocked the route to a children's hospital, including the freeway. Woman was trying to drive a little girl who was having an allergic reaction into the ER. Instead of letting her pass, the protestors attacked her car, and when she rolled down the window to plead with them to let her get treatment for the child, they started hitting her.

I... just do. not. understand how "random acts of violence against innocent bystanders" is a logical way to protest if what you are angry about is an act of violence against an innocent.

Because until the rest of the country gets uncomfortable enough with the civil unrest to really start looking at the problem behind it, nothing gets done.

Sucks to be the innocent, but it sucked to be a black 17 year old in a hoodie who wanted some skittles after dark back then too.

Because the best way to say fuck the system is to randomly assault bystanders in a city across the fucking continent.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a pretty shitty way to justify random violence. If anything, I'd say that it would hurt their cause; it gives the authorities that be reason to crack down on it and suppress public opinion rather than actually looking at the problems at hand.

Well it's easy to condemn. If you don't mind my asking how many of us here in this thread just got told by the country that the country doesn't mind if some vigilante stalks us because of the color of our skin and ends up shooting us in the confrontation when we weren't doing anything wrong in the first place and that itd be ok and legal? Why should they remain peaceable in the face of that? What evidence do you have that suggests being peaceable is going to be more effective in making your point clear when if it wasn't for the threat of this kind of civil unrest in the first place they wouldn't have even had the joke of a trial they did?_________________

URL says most of it, but tl;dr - anti-Zimmerman protestors blocked the route to a children's hospital, including the freeway. Woman was trying to drive a little girl who was having an allergic reaction into the ER. Instead of letting her pass, the protestors attacked her car, and when she rolled down the window to plead with them to let her get treatment for the child, they started hitting her.

I'm not sure that constitutes hitting, what I saw there. It looked like he lunged to (admittedly stupidly) grab and hold the car. Granted, the guy was out of line, and the protests might be to restrict people headed to the hospital. But really. I didn't see a lot of people forcibly stopping them in the end._________________

Exactly. That video pretty much strawmans that guy to make the protest itself look bad.

Granted I just had this conversation on Facebook with a friend. And my opinion on the protests is that at most, the worst thing could be about them is that they are a misdirection of anger out of fear that is legitimate.

To quote myself on FB:

Quote:

But I understand why people are upset. Even if they're completely mis-directing their anger. When being black means you have to dress/act better than someone else to not be seen as a threat, we do have some problems with old racial stereotypes. Protesters know that in our current society, parents of black children have to fear for their kids more than parents of white children. A white person wearing what Trayvon was wearing wouldn't have even registered as someone for Zimmerman to approach. But they'd had a lot of break-ins in their community. He assumed the kid walking in the rain suspiciously was also up to no good, since he met the profile. Like he said on the phone, the kid simply looked suspicious to him.

Everything after that is not surprising. The kid getting scared at the vehicle following him and starting running back to his house. Zimmerman seeing him running and chasing him down. Zimmerman catching up and jumping the kid, trying to restrain him leading to Trayvon (who had already been used to physical confrontations) lashing out at him in the confusion and essentially kicking his ass. Then Zimmerman shot him. Simple case. They'd probably have gotten a guilty verdict if they hadn't have gone for murder. Manslaughter yes. Zimmerman was stupid and chased down someone. Their natural reaction would be to freak the hell out. That action lead him to have to defend himself from Trayvon. Even if he never meant to murder him (which is still a possibility, but we can't prove), his actions did kill him. Yet they tried to prove murder when it was evident Zimmerman had gotten his ass kicked in the confrontation. Not smart to go about it that way with so little concrete evidence to prove he wasn't protecting himself in the end.

It's hard to change people's racism with laws. Granted, laws like "Stand Your Ground" may be at fault, but the law probably didn't have as much to do with this case as early news made it sound, as compared to the evidence presented in the trial. Even without that law, Zimmerman getting beat in the confrontation and no one seeing it would make it hard to prove events didn't unfold in a way to make it self-defense in the end, that Trayvon could have left instead of continuing to fight. Personally, I don't think it's the case. I think it was all pretty instant and he chose to shoot him out of adrenaline and anger from the confrontation, not fear. So...murder. But since you can't prove that, law makes it so that the jury has to let him off, if they don't see that murder fits the evidence at hand. It's just my opinion of what I think happened. Jury's should have the option to put a lesser charge on him if it's obvious he's guilty of the lesser charge._________________

Peaceful protest is a good thing! Violence is not. Defacing police cars, attacking random passers by, publishing death threats? That deligitimizes your cause, and should be condemned, largely regardless of the issue.

The mere fact that the state has accused someone and the media is excoriating them does not mean they should automatically be convicted. If it did, the Duke Lacrosse team would be in prison. The people accused by Tawana Brawley would be in prison. The state has to prove wrong doing, *and this is a good thing.* The verdict in this trial was the correct one, because the state's case was a farce. Protest Angela Corey and her underlings, and the fact that people that incompetent are in those positions. Don't protest the private citizen that no one has proven wasn't defending his life from a savage, unprovoked attack (no one has proven that he WAS, either, *but he gets the benefit of the doubt and that is GOOD!). And for god's sake, do it peacefully!_________________“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

If anything, I'd say that it would hurt their cause; it gives the authorities that be reason to crack down on it and suppress public opinion rather than actually looking at the problems at hand.

it does, and all too often, the neighborhoods that get the brunt of the damage are the ones the protesters are living in, and the people who get hurt are their neighbors - look, for example, at the riots after the rodney king verdict - it wasn't simi valley that got burned or massive numbers of white people who got killed - it was south central LA, and a lot of the victims were koreans and hispanics. and in this case, it's not going to be the legislators who passed the "stand your ground" laws or the legal system that has backed off prosecuting shootings that get assaulted.

but when you are mad and don't know how to change things, people lash out, and i guess at the things closest to them._________________aka: neverscared!

Yeah, when things change from protest to riots, it never is good for your cause. Peaceful protest that makes you look good is going to be more effective. I get people are upset and kind of scared by all of it though. But the protests that have gotten out of hand...That definitely hurts what they're trying to do.

Now as for that video from here in Texas, that was scary happening to them, the way they swarmed around them for a sec and that one guy tried to stop the vehicle. However, I still stick by not believing the story was right in saying he began "hitting" her. But that's common. Not surprising though. Here in Texas, they love to sensationalize the news. Really that's everywhere, but we have a fun flair for it. =P

I still think they are manipulating the bad people's image to condemn the rest of the protests, but that's why peaceful protest is so important. People can take any negativity they find and use it against you._________________

The verdict in this trial was the correct one, because the state's case was a farce.

If you think the prosecutors are at fault for losing the case, that's fine. You are free to complain about the prosecutors.

I think you'd probably be aiming at the wrong target, though. Zimmerman, out of fear and stupidity and bigotry and zeal, created the situation that led to him defending himself with his gun, and causing the death of an innocent young man. If the laws as written allow that to be treated as a self-defense claim, even in the face of incompetent prosecution, then the laws should be rewritten.

CTrees wrote:

Don't protest the private citizen that no one has proven wasn't defending his life from a savage, unprovoked attack (no one has proven that he WAS, either, *but he gets the benefit of the doubt and that is GOOD!).

This private citizen gets benefit of the doubt regarding the actual seconds when the attack was initiated. The important arguments are exactly the same whether he grabbed the victim or whether the victim grabbed him. There is very little doubt that he made several foolish and dangerous decisions that created the situation in the first place.

His fear and stupidity and bigotry and zeal caused the death of an innocent young man. If none of those fearful and stupid and bigoted and zealous decisions can be found to be against the law, then the laws should be rewritten._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine